You can get a clearer-if-still-imperfect sense from contrasting upvotes on parallel, opposing comments, e.g. it has 28 upvotes and 1029823904812309481320948blargltroll has 10. I highly doubt this would have ever received sufficient mass of downvotes to become invisible.
You can get a clearer-if-still-imperfect sense from contrasting upvotes on parallel,
I’m fairly certain that P(disagrees with blargtroll | disagrees with your proposal) >> P(agrees with blargtroll | disagrees with your proposal), simply because blargtroll’s counterargument is weak and its followups reveal some anger management issues.
For example, I would downvote both your proposal and blargtroll’s counterargument if I could—and by the Typical Mind heuristic so would everyone else :)
That said, I think you’re right in that this would not have received sufficiently many downvotes to become invisible.
You can get a clearer-if-still-imperfect sense from contrasting upvotes on parallel, opposing comments, e.g. it has 28 upvotes and 1029823904812309481320948blargltroll has 10. I highly doubt this would have ever received sufficient mass of downvotes to become invisible.
I’m fairly certain that P(disagrees with blargtroll | disagrees with your proposal) >> P(agrees with blargtroll | disagrees with your proposal), simply because blargtroll’s counterargument is weak and its followups reveal some anger management issues.
For example, I would downvote both your proposal and blargtroll’s counterargument if I could—and by the Typical Mind heuristic so would everyone else :)
That said, I think you’re right in that this would not have received sufficiently many downvotes to become invisible.
First time I’ve heard it referred to as a heuristic. +1 =P